Temporal Discounting: Basic Research and The Analysis of Socially Important Behavior

101
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2001, 34, 101122 NUMBER 1 (SPRING 2001)
TEMPORAL DISCOUNTING:
BASIC RESEARCH AND THE ANALYSIS OF
SOCIALLY IMPORTANT BEHAVIOR
THOMAS S. CRITCHFIELD
ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY
AND
SCOTT H. KOLLINS
DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
Recent basic research on human temporal discounting is reviewed to illustrate procedures,
summarize key ndings, and draw parallels with both nonhuman animal research and
conceptual writings on self-control. Lessons derived from this research are then applied
to the challenge of analyzing socially important behaviors such as drug abuse, eating and
exercise, and impulsiveness associated with attention decit hyperactivity disorder. At-
tending to the broader temporal context in which behavior occurs may aid in the analysis
of socially important behavior. Applying this perspective to the study of behavior in
natural environments also highlights the importance of combining methodological ex-
ibility with conceptual rigor to promote the extension of applied behavior analysis to a
broader array of socially important behaviors.
DESCRIPTORS: temporal discounting, delayed consequences, self-control, attention
decit hyperactivity disorder, drug abuse
Applied behavior analysts have expressed
concern over whether their eld is address-
ing an adequate range of socially important
problems (e.g., Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968,
1987; Hawkins, Greene, & Fuqua, 1995;
Hopkins, 1987; Kunkel, 1987). Socially im-
portant problems are easy to identify outside
of the residential settings, day treatment pro-
grams, and laboratory-like environments in
which many applied behavior analyses cur-
rently take place. Practical difculties arise,
however, when attention turns toward the
behavior of individuals who are negotiating
the world outside of controlled therapeutic
settings. Among these difculties are that be-
We thank Karla Doepke, Pat Friman, Greg Mad-
den, and Bob Stromer for valuable feedback during
the development of this article.
Address correspondence to T. Critcheld, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal,
Illinois 61790 (E-mail: [email protected]), or S. Kol-
lins, Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Med-
ical Center, Box 3431, Durham, North Carolina
27710 (E-mail: [email protected]).
haviors of interest may not lend themselves
readily to direct observation or experimental
manipulation, and that these behaviors, as
well as the environmental events that affect
them, occur over such extended time frames
that discrete relations between responses and
consequences become difcult to discern.
Modern applied behavior-analytic tech-
niques often seem better suited to addressing
discrete responseconsequence relations of
the sort that can be examined in controlled
settings.
Hopkins (1987) suggested that applied
behavior analysts might work to modify gov-
ernmental and social systems to make them
more accommodating, and appreciative, of
existing approaches in the eld, but ac-
knowledged that the means for accomplish-
ing this goal remain unclear. As will be dis-
cussed in the present article, another strategy
is to select problems to address, and then
develop methods of inquiry that are com-
patible with these problems, as a vehicle for
102 THOMAS S. CRITCHFIELD and SCOTT H. KOLLINS
insinuating the elds strong conceptual
foundations into new domains. Because
nontraditional problems can spawn nontra-
ditional methods, a challenge inherent in
this strategy is to insure that ones efforts
produce conceptually interpretable outcomes
that are reconcilable with mainstream efforts
in the eld.
In the present article we argue that inspi-
ration for this process of extension can be
found in basic research on temporal discount-
ing in humans, published recently in the Jour-
nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
(JEAB) and elsewhere. Like previous basic-to-
applied articles in the Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis (JABA), the present essay seeks
to summarize recent JEAB research and eval-
uate its applied relevance, although the present
article breaks with precedent in two ways.
First, previous articles have focused on a few
JEAB studies, explaining their procedures and
results in great detail. Recent human temporal
discounting studies in JEAB, however, are bet-
ter appreciated by examining the overall re-
search agenda into which they t. Therefore,
we describe the rapidly growing temporal dis-
counting research area, employing relatively
brief descriptions of selected JEAB studies to
illustrate some of its features. Second, previous
articles have attempted to draw rather close
parallels between the results of JEAB studies
and the possible features of specic types of
behavior-analytic interventions. We attempt
instead to derive broad lessons from the tem-
poral discounting literature that may be in-
structive regarding opportunities for growth in
applied behavior analysis generally.
We begin with an introduction to research
on temporal discounting in humans and
some reasons why, despite the fact that this
research employs unusual methods, it can be
viewed as a useful accompaniment to more
traditional experimental analyses of behavior.
Next we provide some examples of how les-
sons derived from research on temporal dis-
counting in humans might promote a be-
havior-analytic approach to some socially
important problems, including attention def-
icit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), alcohol
abuse, and exercise. We conclude with a
brief consideration of the relations between
these efforts and more traditional efforts in
applied behavior analysis.
BASIC RESEARCH ON
HUMAN TEMPORAL
DISCOUNTING
Behavior analysts assume that behavior is
determined by past consequences, and they
test this assumption in the laboratory via op-
erant procedures in which behavior produces
reinforcers and punishers after varying de-
grees of delay. Economists, cognitive psy-
chologists, and many other social scientists
assume that people plan their actions with
respect to future consequences, and they test
this assumption in the laboratory via pro-
cedures in which subjects indicate their re-
sponse to future events, usually hypotheti-
cally described. Both traditions recognize
that delays render consequences less effective
in guiding behavior. Temporal discounting,
therefore, refers to the weakening of conse-
quence effects due to delay, and any proce-
dure that promotes the investigation of delay
effects can be called a temporal discounting
procedure. The human temporal discount-
ing procedures under discussion in the pres-
ent article have their methodological roots
in the tradition of economics and cognitive
psychology, but they recently have been co-
opted and modied to address questions rel-
evant to operant theory (e.g., see Rachlin,
1989).
Theoretically speaking, temporal dis-
counting research has obvious links to con-
sequence-based interpretations of self-control.
Scholars have long regarded self-control as
involving deferred gratication (e.g., Mischel
& Gilligan, 1964). In operant terms, self-
control means engaging in behavior that
103 TEMPORAL DISCOUNTING
leads to large delayed reinforcers instead of
behavior that leads to small, more immedi-
ate reinforcers. The converse is true when
punishment is involved (e.g., Rachlin, 1976;
Skinner, 1953). This conict between im-
mediate and delayed consequences has in-
spired many interpretations of everyday hu-
man affairs. For example, Nevin (1991)
characterized the stockpiling of nuclear arms
as a trade-off between short-term security
and long-term risk of nuclear annihilation.
Rachlin (1976) described visiting the dentist
(which has mildly unpleasant short-term
consequences) as being in conict with re-
sponse options that preclude regular dental
care (leading to intensely unpleasant long-
term consequences).
The results of operant experiments por-
tray nonhuman animals as clearly impulsive,
acting for short-term gain at the expense of
more favorable long-term outcomes. Given
a choice between small immediate reinforc-
ers and large delayed ones, nonhuman ani-
mals usually show a preference for the for-
mer (e.g., Ainslie, 1974; Logue, 1995; Rach-
lin, 1995a; Rachlin & Green, 1972). Labo-
ratory studies with humans, however, have
not always revealed the same degree of im-
pulsiveness (e.g., Flora & Pavlik, 1992; For-
zano & Logue, 1995; Logue, King, Chavar-
ro, & Volpe, 1990; Logue, Pena-Correal,
Rodriguez, & Kabela, 1986; Millar & Na-
varick, 1984; Navarick, 1996; Tobin &
Logue, 1994). Quite possibly, these discrep-
ant outcomes reect the use of weak rein-
forcers (e.g., small amounts of money) or
trivial delays that pale in comparison to
those that humans tolerate daily outside the
laboratory (e.g., Hyten, Madden, & Field,
1994; Ragotzy, Blakely, & Poling, 1988).
Because of practical constraints, arranging
effective reinforcers and extended participa-
tion remain challenges in human operant re-
search. As will be illustrated below, however,
by stepping into the realm of the hypothet-
ical, temporal discounting procedures may
be able to manipulate meaningful magni-
tudes of delay and reward and thus provide
a valuable missing link in the continuum of
behavior-analytic research. If results ob-
tained from these procedures depict familiar
interactions between delay and magnitude of
reward, then temporal discounting studies
may help to afrm the generality of inter-
temporal choice patterns in humans and
nonhuman animals and, in some cases,
might also be considered valid estimates of
human sensitivity to delay of reinforcement.
Temporal Discounting Procedures
The procedures of temporal discounting
studies, as implemented recently within the
experimental analysis of behavior, involve so-
liciting verbal responses to hypothetical
choice scenarios. The consequences in these
scenarios typically are amounts of money
(which is easily scaled and quantied, unlike
many other outcomes of long-term value,
such as good health or happy relationships).
In some studies the procedures are comput-
erized; in others, an experimenter presents
the choices on index cards and records the
data manually. In all cases, however, the par-
ticipant works individually with the aid of
instructions like the following:
The purpose of this experiment is to see
how you make decisions concerning
imaginary amounts of money. On each
trial, two amounts of money will appear
on your screen. The left side of your
screen offers you one amount and indi-
cates that is it to be paid right now. The
right side of your screen offers you an-
other amount to be paid at a later time
indicated on your screen. Your job is to
choose which of the hypothetical money
amounts is most appealing to you. All
choices are unrelated; please do not at-
tempt to plan ahead. Just judge each
amount based on what is most appealing
to you. (based on Myerson & Green,
1995, and Simpson & Vuchinich,
2000a)
Table 1
Representative trials and hypothetical raw data from a portion of a temporal discounting experiment
involving choices between imaginary money gains. Columns represent different delays to receipt of a large
gain (in this case, $1,000). For each delay, the large delayed gain remains constant, and the amount of an
alternative immediate gain (leftmost column) varies systematically across in ascending sequence. A complete
experiment would also include a descending sequence of small gains for each delay (see text). A hypothetical
response to each trial is indicated with a D (delayed money option selected) or an I (immediate money
option selected). For each of the delays, switches from delayed to immediate options are highlighted with an
asterisk.
Amount of
immediate
reward
Delay to large reward (in months)
0.25 1 6 12 36 60 120 180 300
1
5
10
20
40
60
80
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
920
940
960
980
990
1,000
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I*
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thus, on each trial, subjects choose between
a small amount of money, available imme-
diately (smaller sooner reward, or SSR), and
a larger amount, available at a later time
(larger later reward, or LLR). Across many
trials, the delay of the LLR and the amount
of the SSR are manipulated, with the goal
of identifying the current subjective value of
delayed rewards, dened as the magnitude
of SSR that generates indifference in a
choice against the LLR. This value suggests
the extent to which an LLR has been dis-
counted because of delay.
In many studies, experimental conditions
are dened by a constant LLR and the ma-
nipulation, across trials, of SSR magnitude,
in ascending and descending sequences as
per traditional psychophysical scaling pro-
cedures (Stevens, 1951). Table 1 summarizes
a representative set of trials involving as-
Figure 1. Hypothetical temporal discounting data, showing current subjective value of $1,000 as a function
of delay to its receipt. See text for details.
cending choice sequences. In an ascending
choice sequence, the LLR is likely to be pre-
ferred initially, with preference shifting to
the SSR as its size increases, as shown in
Table 1. In a descending choice sequence,
the SSR is likely to be preferred initially,
with preference switching to the LLR as the
SSR shrinks. Current subjective value for
each LLR is estimated by averaging the
switch points in the ascending and descend-
ing choice sequences. The current subjective
value is almost always less than the face value
of the LLR.
As implemented by Rachlin, Raineri, and
Cross (1991) and many others since, the
temporal discounting procedure incorporates
a range of conditions, across which the delay
to receipt of the LLR varies (see Table 1).
For example, Rachlin et al. used delays rang-
ing from 1 week to 25 years. In data anal-
ysis, each condition is summarized by a sin-
gle current subjective value, and collectively,
the data points from various conditions de-
scribe a negatively decelerating curve in
which current subjective value decreases as a
function of increasing delay to the receipt of
that reward. Figure 1 shows two examples of
temporal discounting functions, to be ex-
plained below.
Quantitative description of results. Consid-
erable interest has been invested in determin-
ing the precise shape of the temporal discount-
ing function. In economics, discounting
curves have been regarded as exponential (Ka-
gel, Battalio, & Green, 1995), but many re-
cent behavioral models are similar to, or based
upon, a hyperbolic equation proposed by Ma-
zur (1987) to account for delay-of-reinforce-
ment data from nonhumans:
A
V . (1)
1 kD
Here V, A, and D represent the current sub-
jective value, amount, and delay, respective-
ly, of the LLR, and k is a tted parameter
whose value can be interpreted as an index
of sensitivity to delay. When k is large, the
current subjective value of LLRs decreases
substantially as a function of delay (open cir-
cles in Figure 1). Individuals produce large
k values by forgoing LLRs to accept smaller
rewards now, and thus are labeled as impul-
sive. When k is small, the subjective value of
LLRs decreases little as a function of delay
(lled triangles in Figure 1). Individuals pro-
duce small k values by forgoing small re-
wards now for more lucrative LLRs, and
thus are considered to be self-controlled.
Equation 1 has t the data well in many
experiments (e.g., Madden, Bickel, & Ja-
cobs, 1999; Myerson & Green, 1995; Rach-
lin et al., 1991; Simpson & Vuchinich,
2000a), but it should be viewed as a working
model rather than the nal statement on the
form of the temporal discounting function.
Theorists still debate the proper mathemat-
ical form of the discounting model.
1
Fortu-
nately, resolution of this matter need not
forestall the present discussion. For present
purposes, what matters is that research in
this area points to a negatively decelerating
discounting function, and that all quantita-
tive models currently under consideration
produce an index of discounting that is use-
ful in summarizing that function, thus yield-
ing a quantitative estimate of sensitivity to
delay. Hereafter, for economy of expression,
1
For example, Myerson and Green (1995) have
proposed adding an exponent to Equation 1, and do-
ing so accounts for marginally higher proportions of
variance. Grace (1999) has pointed out that choices
involving delayed reinforcers in the laboratory can be
accounted for by exponential models based on the
matching law. Models based on the matching law have
not been routinely evaluated with respect to the hy-
pothetical choices of temporal discounting tasks, but
may confer certain mathematical and conceptual ad-
vantages. Thus, it is possible that the precise shape of
the negatively decelerating temporal discounting func-
tion has been misjudged, and that the most appropri-
ate parameter describing speed of discounting has yet
to be agreed upon.
we will refer to sensitivity to delay in terms
of the k parameter in Equation 1 and its
variants, although we acknowledge that oth-
er means of assessing and summarizing sen-
sitivity to delay are worth considering.
Validation of the Procedures
There is no escaping that temporal dis-
counting procedures with humans differ
from traditional behavioral analyses in many
ways, and thus these procedures are likely to
promote skepticism in many JABA readers.
Concerns worthy of attention include (a) in
hypothetical procedures, subjects acquire no
within-study experience with the conse-
quences of interest, and demonstrate the
effects of these consequences via verbal re-
sponses that bear no necessary relation to the
behavior they supposedly describe (e.g.,
Skinner, 1957); (b) many studies have eval-
uated temporal discounting curves based on
the central tendency of several individuals,
raising questions about the applicability of
the models to individual behavior; and (c)
procedures like those just described are quite
brief (as short as 30 min), raising questions
about the long-term stability of the results.
For these reasons, before considering any
implications of temporal discounting re-
search with humans, it is worthwhile to con-
sider what evidence may exist to promote
condence in its ndings.
Real versus hypothetical consequences. Al-
though temporal discounting procedures of-
ten omit contact with real consequences,
most adult subjects will have substantial pri-
or experience with earning and spending
money. There is no guarantee that verbal
repertoires, as assessed in hypothetical tasks,
will correspond to actual choice, but typical
preexperimental histories provide the oppor-
tunity for ample self-observation of the sort
that might inform a self-descriptive verbal
repertoire (see Skinner, 1957, e.g., pp. 138
146). In addition, a few studies employing
real, rather than hypothetical, consequences
have produced results much like those de-
scribed previously (e.g., Crean, de Wit, &
Richards, 2000; Kirby & Marakovic, 1996).
For example, Richards, Zhang, Mitchell, and
de Wit (1999) allowed healthy volunteers to
choose between various SSRs and an LLR of
$10, available at delays up to 365 days. For
each delay, the indifference points indicative
of current subjective value were estimated in
an adjusting procedure, rather than a xed
sequence of choices as in Table 1. A hyper-
bolic discounting function t these indiffer-
ence points well. Such results suggest direct
parallels in human discounting of hypothet-
ical and real money consequences.
Another point lending condence to the
interpretation of human temporal discount-
ing data is the mathematical similarity of
functions derived from hypothetical tasks
with humans and those based on the behav-
ior of nonhuman animals working for food
or water. For example, Richards, Mitchell,
de Wit, and Seiden (1997) employed a dis-
crete-trials procedure in which rats chose be-
tween immediate and delayed sources of wa-
ter. The magnitude of the delayed reinforcer
remained constant while that of the imme-
diate reinforcer was titrated across trials, in-
creasing after delayed-reinforcer choices and
decreasing after immediate-reinforcer choic-
es. The delay to the xed reinforcer varied
across conditions. In each condition, the val-
ue of the titrating reinforcer at which per-
formance stabilized represented an indiffer-
ence point, much like the current subjective
value measure in human temporal discount-
ing tasks. When these indifference points
were plotted against delay, Equation 1 (mod-
ied to account for position biases) account-
ed for between 76% and 99% of the vari-
ance in individual discounting functions
(median 98%).
Group versus individual analyses. Because
many temporal discounting data sets have
been analyzed at the group level, Myerson
and Green (1995) examined whether indi-
vidual-subject responses mirror functions
based on group-aggregate data. Using hy-
pothetical procedures like those described
previously, Myerson and Green assessed col-
lege students twice, once with a relatively
small LLR and once with a relatively large
LLR. A modied Equation 1 accounted for
about 92% and 94% of the variance in func-
tions describing group-median data for the
smaller and larger LLRs, respectively. The
same model could be successfully applied to
21 of 24 individual functions (for the two
LLRs combined), accounting for a median
of 95% of the variance in these cases. Sim-
ilarly impressive individual ts now have
been reported in a number of studies (e.g.,
Green, Myerson, & McFadden, 1997; Mad-
den et al., 1999; Rachlin et al., 1991; Rich-
ards et al., 1999; Simpson & Vuchinich,
2000a). Such ndings suggest that models
based on Equation 1 t individual-subject
functions as well as group ones, alleviating
concerns about k values as an artifact of ag-
gregating data across subjects.
Stability of temporal discounting patterns.
Relatively little is known about the long-
term stability of the index of temporal dis-
counting (k). Simpson and Vuchinich
(2000a), however, reported that k values for
college students remained fairly constant
across assessments separated by 1 week, and
one of us (Critcheld) has collected pilot
data suggesting stability over as long as 10
weeks. Bolstering the case for temporal dis-
counting as an informative measure of im-
pulsiveness are studies suggesting a relation-
ship between k and relatively stable individ-
ual differences of obvious conceptual rele-
vance.
Casual observation and clinical data tes-
tify to heightened impulsiveness of certain
groups of individuals. For example, habitual
drug users are often thought of as impulsive
(e.g., Evenden, 1999) in the sense that they
trade the short-term pleasures of intoxication
against a variety of long-term costs (e.g.,
hangovers, lost job productivity, impaired re-
lationships, etc.). Heavy alcohol or other
drug consumption might be regarded as one
measurable outcome in a pattern of impul-
sive choices. Consistent with this assump-
tion, temporal discounting studies demon-
strate that binge drinkers (Vuchinich &
Simpson, 1998), cigarette smokers (Bickel,
Odum, & Madden, 1999; Mitchell, 1999),
and heroin addicts (Kirby, Petry, & Bickel,
1999; Madden, Petry, Badger, & Bickel,
1997) all tend to discount the value of de-
layed rewards at a faster rate than compari-
son groups. In addition, evidence for height-
ened impulsiveness, as measured by the tem-
poral discounting procedure, has been found
in intravenous drug users who are willing to
share needles (Odum, Madden, Badger, &
Bickel, 2000) and in substance abusers with
concomitant gambling problems (Petry &
Casarella, 1999).
Perhaps analogously, college students who
eschew safe-sex practices appear to have
higher k values than sexually active students
who take precautions against disease and
pregnancy (Farr, 1998). And, consistent with
age-level stereotypes about impulsiveness,
sixth graders tend to have higher k values
than college students, who tend to have
higher k values than elderly adults (Green,
Fry, & Myerson, 1994). In all of the cases
just described, the index of temporal dis-
counting (k) appears to be correlated with
relatively stable behavioral differences be-
tween groups of individuals.
The index of temporal discounting also
has been found to reect situational dynam-
ics of conceptual relevance to a behavioral
analysis. For example, individuals living in
Polands wildly inated economy of the early
1990s, who became accustomed to rapid de-
cline in the value of money, tended to have
higher k values than individuals living in the
less volatile economy of the United States.
The between-nations difference disappeared,
however, after Polands ination was brought
under control a few years later (Ostaszewski,
Green, & Myerson, 1998). In another study
involving only participants from the United
States, individuals with low annual incomes
showed more pronounced temporal dis-
counting than individuals with higher in-
comes (Green, Myerson, Lichtman, Rosen,
& Fry, 1996). These between-groups com-
parisons suggest that individual sensitivity to
delay may depend on establishing operations
that are specic to the consequences under
consideration, but apparently no research
has addressed this problem experimentally
with humans at the individual level.
2
If k is a context-sensitive, experience-driven
measure of impulsiveness, then it should vary
with the specic hypothetical consequences
under consideration. Indeed, larger rewards
are discounted proportionally less than smaller
ones (Green et al., 1997). In addition, k can
differ within individuals for different types of
hypothetical outcomes (e.g., money vs. health,
Chapman, 1996; heroin vs. money in opioid-
dependent individuals, Madden et al., 1997).
The latter outcome makes sense if one as-
sumes that k is affected by ongoing histories
of experience with environmental contingen-
cies, which could differ for different classes of
consequences.
Summary. From the perspective of tradi-
tional behavior-analytic methods, temporal
discounting laboratory procedures have
some unusual features. Nevertheless, these
procedures have spawned outcomes that
nicely suit the conceptual framework of be-
havior analysis. The ndings of temporal
2
Several studies involving edible reinforcers have
found no systematic effect of deprivation level on pref-
erence for delayed reinforcers in nonhuman animals
(Logue, Chavarro, Rachlin, & Reeder, 1988; Logue &
Pena-Correal, 1985; Richards et al., 1997). An obvi-
ous contrast between these studies and those in the
human temporal discounting tradition involves the
type of reinforcer (primary vs. conditioned or hypo-
thetical). The recent development of self-control pro-
cedures in nonhumans involving conditioned reinforc-
ers (Jackson & Hackenberg, 1996) may provide a
means to shed further light on this issue.
discounting studies with humans are broadly
consistent with nonhuman animals choices
involving real, briey delayed consequences
and humans choices in many everyday sit-
uations. In bridging these observations, tem-
poral discounting research bolsters con-
dence in interpretations of human affairs
based on principles illuminated in animal
self-control studies while simultaneously
providing a reminder that the time scale on
which important human events occur can be
quite large.
THE TEMPORAL CONTEXT
OF SOCIALLY IMPORTANT
BEHAVIOR
Of what practical value are the ndings of
temporal discounting studies with humans?
Below, we discuss two possibilities. First, as
some of the studies cited previously suggest,
special populations of individuals might be
distinguished in terms of temporal discount-
ing. Using ADHD as an example, we review
some of the advantages of attempting to study
temporal discounting in clinically relevant cas-
es of impulsiveness. Second, temporal dis-
counting research suggests that the conse-
quences that affect behavior can be distributed
over an extended time frame. Using substance
abuse as an example, we consider some of the
implications of this general perspective for the
study of socially important behavior in the
natural environment.
Functional Characteristics of
Psychological Disorders
As those who provide behavior-analytic
services are well aware, the topographical
features of psychological disorders often pro-
vide little insight into the functional prop-
erties of problem behavior (e.g., Scotti, Mor-
ris, McNeil, & Hawkins, 1996). An impor-
tant contribution of functional analysis
methodology (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman,
& Richman, 1982/1994) lies in highlighting
the distinction between topography and
function. To date, functional analysis pro-
cedures have been applied to fairly limited
classes of problem behavior (e.g., self-injury
and aggression) in relatively few diagnostic
categories (e.g., developmental disorders).
One way for applied behavior analysis to ex-
tend its scope is to address the problems as-
sociated with other disorders.
It has long been recognized that certain
populations can be distinguished using lab-
oratory procedures that tap fundamental be-
havior principles (e.g., Harzem, 1984). For
example, violent criminals differ from non-
violent ones in their performance on an op-
erant laboratory measure of aggression
(Cherek, Schnapp, Moeller, & Dougherty,
1996). Individuals diagnosed with bipolar
disorder show a different relation between
reinforcement rate and response rate when
manic than when depressed (Bradshaw &
Szabadi, 1978). The temporal discounting
literature makes clear that different groups
of humans tend to discount delayed rewards
more or less. Given their utility in distin-
guishing substance abusers from controls
(e.g., Bickel et al., 1999; Madden et al.,
1997; Vuchinich & Simpson, 1998), tem-
poral discounting procedures might prove
useful in assessing a variety of clinical pop-
ulations in which impulsive choices typically
are of concern.
Consider the behavior problems associat-
ed with a diagnosis of ADHD. ADHD,
which incorporates developmentally inap-
propriate levels of impulsiveness and global
activity, has received relatively little attention
from applied behavior analysts.
3
This may
3
An electronic keyword search of JABA contents
conducted during preparation of this article found
that ADHD, which occurs in 3% to 5% of school-
aged children (American Psychiatric Association,
1994), was addressed in only 14 of 322 articles,
whereas autism, which is estimated to be about 100
times less prevalent than ADHD, was the focus of over
100 articles. See the JABA web site at http://
www.envmed.rochester.edu/wwwrap/behavior/jaba/
jabahome.htm.
be explained, in part, by the fact that chil-
dren with ADHD typically live at home, at-
tend regular classes in public schools, and
receive brief outpatient therapy, whereas ap-
plied behavior-analytic research often is con-
ducted in controlled therapeutic settings that
are amenable to long-term, single-subject in-
vestigations. Not surprisingly, ADHD usu-
ally is characterized using terms and con-
structs that are not functionally dened. It
may not be widely known within behavior
analysis, therefore, that ADHD has been has
been conceptualized in ways that bring to
bear the effects of environmental events,
such as delay to consequences (Sonuga-
Barke, Taylor, Sembi, & Smith, 1992) and
sensitivity to reinforcement (Barkley, 1997;
Kollins, Lane, & Shapiro, 1997; Murray &
Kollins, 2000; Schweitzer, 1996).
Perhaps the most inuential account of
ADHD is that of Barkley (1997), who has
attributed the disorder to a small constella-
tion of factors, the most salient of which is
behavioral inhibition, which can be concep-
tualized as the extent to which behavior is
inuenced by its consequences. For instance,
Barkley has asserted that
Inhibition and its related executive
functions may be most obvious (and
most needed) when a delay of a con-
sequence is imposed in a task, when a
conict is confronted between the im-
mediate and delayed consequences of a
response, or when a problem arises that
requires generating a novel response to
resolve it. . . . Conditioned signals of
punishment from experiences and prior
socialization may be the determinants
of when inhibition and self regulation
are engaged. (p. 68)
Stated differently, Barkleys model suggests
that the problems seen in children diagnosed
with ADHD can be described in functional
terms that relate measurable environmental
events (like time and reward magnitude) to
the problem behavior in question. Speci-
cally, this model predicts that a form of
temporal myopia should exist in children
with ADHD, in that behavior is more con-
trolled by the temporal now than by inter-
nally represented information pertaining to
the past, the future, and the sense of time
(Barkley, 1997, p. 77).
ADHD behaviors have been explained in
terms of sensitivity to reinforcement before
(e.g., Douglas & Parry, 1994), but it is im-
portant to note that, in operant terms, this
sensitivity can be conceptualized in many
ways. Indeed, the testability of any conse-
quence-based model of ADHD depends on
clarifying the denition of sensitivity. For in-
stance, sensitivity to reinforcement might
suggest effects related, or unrelated, to tem-
poral discounting. In the latter case, one
form of sensitivity is evident in the degree
to which behavior allocation reects the dis-
crepancies between two or more sources of
immediate reinforcement, as per the match-
ing law (Baum, 1974; Kollins et al., 1997).
Barkleys (1997) model, its references to in-
ternal representations notwithstanding, plac-
es ADHD behaviors squarely in the context
of immediate and delayed consequences.
The model suggests that, in persons with
ADHD, immediate reinforcers are unusually
potent because competing reinforcers are
heavily discounted due to delay. The model
also suggests that people diagnosed with
ADHD are relatively unaffected by delayed
punishment. Because of its specicity, Bar-
kleys theoretical model appears to be emi-
nently testable. Unfortunately, tasks com-
monly used to evaluate impulsiveness asso-
ciated with ADHD (Corkum & Siegel,
1993; Oosterlaan, Logan, & Sergeant, 1998)
were not designed to isolate temporal dis-
counting effects. Investigators who under-
stand temporal discounting theory and re-
lated experimental procedures (e.g., behavior
analysts) thus stand poised to make notable
contributions to this rapidly growing area of
clinical psychology.
Approaching the behavior problems asso-
ciated with ADHD from the standpoint of
temporal discounting allows some specic
predictions to be generated. First, individu-
als with ADHD should discount the value
of delayed rewards differently than undiag-
nosed controls (e.g., if impulsiveness reects
unusually rapid reinforcer discounting, then
k should be larger for ADHD children). Sec-
ond, individuals with ADHD should dis-
count punishers (costs) more than reinforc-
ers (gains). Third, across individual cases,
the magnitude of temporal discounting ef-
fects (the size of k or the discrepancy be-
tween k for reinforcement and k for punish-
ment) should be correlated with severity of
behavior problems. Fourth, treatments that
alleviate symptoms of ADHD should have
conceptually interpretable effects on tem-
poral discounting patterns. For example, be-
cause stimulant drugs like methylphenidate
are among the interventions of choice for
ADHD, one might expect them to reduce
sensitivity to delay (i.e., result in smaller val-
ues of k) in persons diagnosed with ADHD.
We are aware of no published studies that
have explicitly examined these relations,
4
but
data from a number of sources suggest that
choices involving immediate consequences
and delayed alternatives may play a signi-
cant role in the behavior of such individuals.
For example, there appear to be links be-
tween ADHD behavior and substance use
(Levin & Kleber, 1995), accidents (Schubi-
ner et al., 2000), educational and occupa-
tional difculties (Mannuzza, Klein, Bessler,
4
Recent research suggests that the stimulant d-am-
phetamine reduces temporal discounting in pigeons
(e.g., Hummel & Pitts, 2000). In addition, a number
of laboratory studies suggest that methylphenidate
tempers impulsiveness in ADHD children (e.g., Ar-
nett, Fischer, & Newby, 1996; Casat, Pearson, Van
Davelaar, & Cherek, 1995), but the procedures typi-
cally do not permit an analysis in terms of temporal
discounting.
Malloy, & Hynes, 1997), and aggression
(e.g., Pliszka, 1998), all of which can be
thought of as producing immediate reinforc-
ers combined with delayed risks and costs.
An obvious opportunity exists to shed
light on the functional properties of impul-
siveness as exhibited by individuals with
ADHD. Traditional operant laboratory tasks
(e.g., those that emphasize self-control and
sensitivity to reinforcement) could provide
one valuable form of assessment, because
they bring well-elaborated behavioral prin-
ciples to bear on problems like those in
ADHD (e.g., Kollins et al., 1997; Saldana
& Neuringer, 1998; Sonuga-Barke et al.,
1992). For practical reasons related to the
settings in which ADHD children usually
are encountered, however, many operant
tasks may be difcult to apply widely. For
example, it may be difcult to arrange
meaningful delays to reinforcement in brief
laboratory procedures, and substantial
schedule exposure may be required to gen-
erate stable response patterns. Hypothetical
temporal discounting tasks, which are rela-
tively quick and easy to administer, could
provide a convenient, alternative means of
estimating discounting functions (at least in
individuals who are old enough to under-
stand the questions). Temporal discounting
tasks thus might promote the goal of de-
scribing ADHD problem behavior patterns
in functional and measurable terms, along
dimensions dened by the independent var-
iables known to inuence choice generally.
Moreover, because the procedures of tem-
poral discounting seem so obviously related
to behavioral characteristics (e.g., impulsive-
ness) already assumed to underlie ADHD,
the procedures offer a degree of face validity
that could help temporal discounting pro-
cedures nd acceptance where traditional
laboratory schedules do not.
Viewing ADHD partly as a problem in
temporal discounting immediately suggests
factors worthy of basic and applied investiga-
tion (e.g., reinforcer magnitude, type, and de-
lay). A variety of benets could accrue as the
relation becomes clearer between these factors
and the socially important problems associated
with ADHD. Ultimately, the goal would be
to understand relations between ADHD be-
haviors and temporal discounting well enough
to inform individual interventions. It might be
possible, for example, to distinguish subtypes
of the disorder (e.g., based on the discounting
of different types of consequences), and a clear
functional description of individual cases will
naturally suggest intervention strategies (e.g.,
Dixon et al., 1998), such as the shaping of
tolerance for delay (e.g., Schweitzer & Sulzer-
Azaroff, 1988, 1995). If this sequence of
events sounds reminiscent of the process of
functional analysis, the parallel is drawn inten-
tionally.
Socially Important Behavior As
Choice Over an Extended Time Frame
As the preceding example suggests, labora-
tory procedures can advance the conceptuali-
zation of clinical problems. Ultimately, how-
ever, efforts to understand socially important
behaviors must draw applied behavior analysts
into the natural environments in which prob-
lem behaviors occur. Basic research on tem-
poral discounting can be broadly informative
to these efforts in two ways. First, in portray-
ing sensitivity to consequences as a problem
of choice, temporal discounting procedures
provide a reminder that, in a world of limited
time and effort, all behavior occurs at the ex-
pense of other behavior. Competing contin-
gencies usually loom large, and thus response
strength is a function of the strength of alter-
native behaviors (e.g., Baum, 1974), as me-
diated by factors such as response effort and
the frequency and magnitude of reinforcers
and punishers (e.g., Friman & Poling, 1999;
Madden, 2000).
Second, temporal discounting research
places choice into an extended temporal
context. Although operant consequences lose
efcacy with delay, even delayed conse-
quences can have an impact on behavior
(e.g., Lattal & Gleeson, 1990; Stromer,
McComas, & Rehfeldt, 2000). Behavior can
be affected by events that occur over extend-
ed intervals, and this has important impli-
cations for attempts to understand behavior
in natural environments. With the passage
of time, responses and consequences aggre-
gate, and as they do their relations grow ever
more complex (e.g., a single consequence
can inuence a variety of responses preced-
ing it; Dews, 1962). For this reason, it may
prove difcult to fully characterize socially
important behavior in terms of discrete re-
sponseconsequence relations. Indeed, sev-
eral temporal discounting studies point to
the utility of thinking about consequences in
more molar terms. For instance, in labora-
tory studies involving hypothetical out-
comes, participants tend to respond differ-
ently to a single delayed reward than to a
sequence of rewards spaced over time, even
when total delay and total amount of reward
are equated in the two cases (Hsee, Loew-
enstein, Blount, & Bazerman, 1999; Kudad-
jie-Gyam & Rachlin, 1996; Stevenson,
1993). Stevenson has described this outcome
as analogous to conditioned reinforcement
effects in chained schedules (although other
interpretations exist; Hsee et al., 1999).
Molar sequences of responses may be just
as important as sequences of consequences
(Rachlin, 1995b). For example, Siegel and
Rachlin (1995) allowed pigeons to respond
for food in a typical discrete-trial self-control
task. When choices were made with a single
key peck, pigeons preferred the SSR. But
when choices were made by completing a
xed ratio of 31 responses, the rst 30 of
which could be distributed in any way across
the two keys, the LLR was preferred more
often. This increased preference might arise
because the time necessary to complete the
ratio requirement created added delay for
both alternatives; such a delay would be ex-
pected to differentially affect the subjective
value of the SSR (e.g., Rachlin, 1989). An-
other possibility noted by Siegel and Rachlin
is that the time and effort required to move
from one operandum to another may have
functioned like changeover cost, known to
promote preference for the richer of two
concurrent response alternatives (e.g., Apar-
icio & Baum, 1997). What is striking for
present purposes is that the pigeons tended
to initiate pecking on the LLR key and per-
sist there until reinforcement had been
earned, although switching between keys
was allowed by the procedure. Whatever the
explanation for this tendency, it is clear from
these results that sequences of responses can
sometimes function differently than discrete
responses in choice situations.
The example of substance abuse. One type
of socially important behavior to which
these lessons might be applied is maladaptive
alcohol and drug consumption. Most exces-
sive drinking and drug use does not take
place in a professional ofce or in a treat-
ment program, and thus bears inspection in
the natural environment. Some socially im-
portant aspects of substance use (e.g., abuse,
recovery, relapse) are, by their nature, molar
phenomena, not fully describable without
referring to sequences of events over extend-
ed time periods.
Drug and alcohol abuse often has been
examined within a choice framework, espe-
cially in laboratory research (e.g., Bickel,
DeGrandpre, & Higgins, 1993). For exam-
ple, the amount of responding maintained
by drug reinforcers tends to vary with the
availability and characteristics of alternative
reinforcers (e.g., Bickel, DeGrandpre, &
Higgins, 1995; Woolverton & Alling,
1999). Consistent with this corpus of re-
search, Vuchinich and Tucker (e.g., Vuch-
inich, 1982, 1995; Vuchinich & Tucker,
1983, 1988) have applied a behavioral
choice perspective toward understanding al-
cohol problems in the natural environment.
In general, they have argued, drinking-relat-
ed behavior produces favorable immediate
consequences (such as intoxication) but un-
favorable delayed ones (such as hangover
and health problems). Drinking competes
for time and resources with nondrinking be-
haviors, which tend to facilitate favorable de-
layed consequences (e.g., good health and
relationships) but less tangible immediate
benets. The research program of Vuchinich
and Tucker (e.g., 1996; Tucker, 1995; Tuck-
er, Vuchinich, & Pukish, 1997) illustrates
how behavioral choice concepts can be ap-
plied to behavior that occurs in the natural
environment, where the time frames of in-
terest can be quite extended. This research
has addressed two specic problems in al-
cohol abuse: First, why do habitual heavy
drinkers sometimes abstain from drinking,
either independently (i.e., spontaneous re-
covery) or by seeking treatment? Second,
why do alcohol abusers who have received
treatment start drinking again (relapse)?
To answer questions about drinking hab-
its, one needs a way to track the occurrence
of drinking episodes, and environmental
events that might contribute to them, over
periods lasting weeks, months, or even
years. Direct observation usually is not an
option. Fortunately, extensive methodolog-
ical research has identied conditions under
which self-reports, as a form of behavioral
assessment by proxy, yield valid data on the
real-time distribution of drinking episodes
and potentially important environmental
events (e.g., Babor, Stephens, & Marlatt,
1987; Maisto, Sobell, Cooper, & Sobell,
1982; OFarrell & Maisto, 1987; Sobell,
Sobell, Leo, & Cancilla, 1988). Through
interviews with problem drinkers, Vuchin-
ich and Tucker examined the temporal pat-
terning of drinking and its relation to a va-
riety of environmental events that were pre-
sumed to reect the reinforcing value of en-
gaging in nondrinking alternative
behaviors.
In general, individuals who ceased drink-
ing had experienced a variety of drinking-
related outcomes that appeared to threaten
the availability of non-drinking-related re-
inforcers. These events, which tended to ac-
cumulate before help seeking or spontane-
ous recovery began, included difculties in
social, vocational, and intimate relation-
ships, as well as in health and nances
(George & Tucker, 1996; Tucker, 1995;
Tucker et al., 1997). Thus, the costs of
drinking had become temporally acute. Re-
lapse among recovering alcohol abusers also
was related to non-drinking-related events.
For example, one study found that, in prob-
lem drinkers recently released from treat-
ment, adverse social and vocational events
tended to precede episodes of drinking. In
addition, the degree of disruption in these
areas experienced prior to treatment pre-
dicted the strength of the posttreatment as-
sociation between life events and drinking
(Vuchinich & Tucker, 1996).
Such ndings, though readily understood
in behavior-analytic terms, are difcult to
describe in the language of discrete re-
sponseconsequence relations. Instead, they
depict a molar relation between overall pat-
terns of drinking and aggregated conse-
quences for alternative (nondrinking) behav-
iors, extending over a relatively lengthy time
interval. This relation is important to note
for at least three reasons. First, results like
those just described parallel ndings from
laboratory drug self-administration research,
indicating that drug use is integrally related
to the availability of nondrug consequences.
Second, such ndings can inform the devel-
opment of treatment protocols. For example,
it seems obvious that addiction treatment
should address the choice context in which
drug consumption occurs, in particular by
establishing and enhancing nondrug rein-
forcers (e.g., Higgins & Silverman, 1999;
Hunt & Azrin, 1973). Within that context,
if the reinforcing consequences of drinking
are immediate, but those accruing from non-
drinking alternatives may be deferred, then
temporal discounting probably renders drug
reinforcers especially powerful in relative
terms. According to principles of behavioral
momentum (e.g., Nevin, 1996), the more
richly reinforced of two behaviors should be
more difcult to change, making one com-
mon feature of drug treatment programs, ab-
stinence training (i.e., extinction for drug-
related behaviors) a difcult challenge.
Therefore, it may be productive for treat-
ment programs to focus initially on boosting
reinforcement for alternative behaviors (e.g.,
Higgins & Silverman, 1999; Vuchinich &
Tucker, 1998).
5
Finally, information about
the choice and temporal context of socially
relevant behavior can inform public policy
decisions about which prevention, interven-
tion, and interdiction programs are cost ef-
fective and worthy of public funding (e.g.,
Tucker, Donovan, & Marlatt, 1999), levels
of analysis that behavior analysts rarely ad-
dress.
Extension to other behaviors. The analysis
of alcohol-related problems in the natural
environment provides a useful model for in-
quiries into other kinds of behavior prob-
lems (e.g., see Simpson & Vuchinich,
2000b). Consider, for example, the challeng-
es inherent in studying eating and exercise
habits, which are important to understand
because overeating promotes, and physical
activity serves as a buffer against, a variety
of problems ranging from cardiovascular dis-
ease to orthopedic difculties (e.g., U.S. De-
5
Admittedly, similar insights might be generated
without reference to the temporal discounting litera-
ture. For example, the community reinforcement
model of drug abuse treatment was pioneered before
most of the research we describe was conducted (Hunt
& Azrin, 1973). This model involves arranging alter-
native reinforcement by enhancing social and family
relationships, job prospects, and other sources of im-
mediate reinforcement unrelated to alcohol. Neverthe-
less, the success of this treatment model (e.g., Higgins
et al., 1991) makes greater sense in light of a temporal
discounting analysis.
partment of Health and Human Services,
1996). As is true for alcohol consumption,
most eating and exercise do not take place
in the laboratory.
Impetus for examining eating and exer-
cise in the natural environment comes
from laboratory research placing these ac-
tivities squarely within a behavioral choice
framework. Studies have found exercise
rates to depend on response requirements
(de Luca & Holborn, 1990, 1992) and on
the cost of sedentary alternatives (Epstein,
Smith, Vara, & Rodefer, 1991). Food
choices have been shown to depend on the
response cost for less preferred alternatives
(Laipalainen & Epstein, 1990; Smith &
Epstein, 1991). These patterns are broadly
consistent with behavioral choice princi-
ples, and there is some evidence that they
accurately model behavior in the natural
environment. In one study, for example,
children played a computer game that in-
corporated concurrent reinforcement
schedules, in which one response alterna-
tive produced access to sedentary activities
(such as watching videotapes) and the oth-
er produced access to physically demand-
ing activities (e.g., riding an exercise bicy-
cle). The response requirement for the
physical activity remained constant while
that for the sedentary activity was system-
atically varied to determine an indifference
point. Indifference points proved to be a
good predictor of global physical activity
level at home, as measured through an ac-
celerometer (Epstein, Kilanowski, Consal-
vi, & Paluch, 1999). Taken together, re-
sults like these provide encouragement that
eating and exercise, when studied in the
natural environment, may be understood
in the terms of the present discussion. Fur-
ther encouragement can be found in the
success of behaviorally oriented programs
for promoting healthier lifestyles (Marcus
et al., 2000).
With the right measurement tools,
6
what
might be learned about eating and exercise
choices in the broader temporal context of
the natural environment? Few relevant stud-
ies exist, but the framework under discussion
yields several general predictions for which
provisional support can be found. It may be
assumed, for example, that molar reinforce-
ment variables will predict entry into prob-
lems of overeating and too little exercise, re-
covery from these problems, and relapse in
those who have established healthy eating
and exercise habits. Indeed, using procedures
like those described previously for alcohol-
ism research, Tinker and Tucker (1997) ex-
amined the factors that predict natural re-
covery from obesity, and found that recovery
was associated with molar life events (alter-
native reinforcers) similar to those found to
inuence alcohol consumption. It may also
be assumed that eating and exercise choices
will depend on delay to access of relevant
reinforcers, including those for alternative
behaviors. Laboratory research shows that
the choice of active versus sedentary behav-
ior is inuenced by the proximity of exercise
facilities (Raynor, Coleman, & Epstein,
1998). Similar ndings were obtained in a
community study that showed a negative re-
lation between exercise and distance from
home to public exercise facilities (Sallis et al.,
1990). Presumably, more distant facilities
impose a delay on access to activity-related
reinforcers, thus discounting their value. De-
6
Observational systems exist for coding childrens
eating and activity patterns in natural environments.
For example, that of McKenzie et al. (1991) treats
eating as behavior (rather than simply a route of ad-
ministration for calories), and focuses on the anteced-
ents and consequences of eating and exercise. Direct
observation is not always an option, however, placing
a premium on self-reports and other alternative mea-
sures. Unfortunately, researchers are still wrestling with
how to generate reliable self-reports about eating and
exercise (e.g., Neumark-Sztainer, Jeffery, & French,
1997). Behavior analysts who work in this domain
might, therefore, need to engage in methods devel-
opment to support their research.
lay also may play an important role in cer-
tain interventions for overeating. For exam-
ple, it is common to recommend that snacks
in the house be placed out of sight and out
of reach to maximize the time and effort
needed to obtain them (e.g., Stuart & Davis,
1974).
GENERAL IMPLICATIONS
In principle, a perspective grounded in
temporal discounting concepts can inform
the analysis of almost any behavior in the
natural environment that incorporates de-
layed consequences or consequences that ag-
gregate over time. Consider, as examples, re-
lationship success, the allocation of time be-
tween work and family life, academic study
patterns, child discipline habits of parents
and teachers, actions that affect the likeli-
hood of household accidents, consumer hab-
its relevant to resource conservation and en-
vironmental pollution, selected behaviors of
political candidates and elected ofcials, and
corporate investment in research and devel-
opment. Nothing known to date renders
fundamental principles of behavior incom-
patible with such cases, leaving the eld free,
in principle, to choose among the many in-
teresting topics awaiting a behavioral analy-
sis. But the elds choice of topics necessarily
reects choices among methods of investi-
gation. Understanding behavior in the nat-
ural environment will require valid means of
examining the distribution over time of
events that investigators do not control (in-
cluding stable individual differences in pat-
terns of responses to these events).
Few readers would reject ADHD behav-
iors, drug abuse, or eating and exercise prob-
lems as trivial topics for an applied science,
but questions may linger regarding the pres-
ent suggestions for examining problems like
these in the natural environment. Is this re-
ally applied behavior analysis? In mounting
a case for the relevance of temporal dis-
counting research to applied behavior anal-
ysis, the present article has invoked self-re-
port measurement, selected studies involving
group-level or descriptive analyses, and an
analytical framework in which the relation
between individual responses and conse-
quences may not always be evident. Stan-
dard conceptions of the eld hold most of
these practices in low regard (e.g., Baer et
al., 1968, 1987; see also Derenne & Baron,
1999). Yet our approach is hardly novel.
Proposals for extending the reach of applied
behavior analysis into natural settings span
most of the elds history (Baer et al., 1968;
Carr, 1994; Nordquist & Wahler, 1973),
and these proposals have acknowledged the
utility of descriptive methods (Bijou, Peter-
son, & Ault, 1968; Epstein, Parker, McCoy,
& McGee, 1976; Lalli, Browder, Mace, &
Brown, 1993; Wahler & Fox, 1981), self-
report methods (Finney, Putnam, & Boyd,
1998; Winnett & Neale, 1981), and molar-
level descriptions of behavior (Wahler &
Fox, 1981).
Baer et al. (1987) bemoaned the fact that
applied researchers increasingly transform
questions to t known designs and their
rules, rather than constructing a design that
answers the original question (p. 319). Per-
haps applied behavior analysis should be
whatever it must be to allow behavior-ana-
lytic thinking to contribute to the solution
of important problems. For instance, group-
level analyses usually are eschewed in behav-
ior analysis, but consider the problem of
identifying life events relevant to alternative
reinforcement effects in the individual
course of alcohol abuse. Among the myriad
possible life events not related to alcohol
consumption, which should be measured?
Group-level and descriptive analyses might
permit the identication of candidate vari-
ables worthy of further experimental analysis
at the individual level. Consider also that
some problems, such as those involving di-
agnosis and classication of disorders like
ADHD, may be impossible to evaluate with-
out some reference to a population of affect-
ed individuals (e.g., see Iwata et al., 1994).
In such cases, group research methodology
might well be appropriate to the research
question. Of greater importance than the
methods employed in a specic investiga-
tion, therefore, are the conceptual rigor in-
vested in devising and answering the re-
search question, and the capacity of the in-
vestigation to promote new analyses and in-
terventions (including those at the
individual level).
Applied behavior analysis can extend its
inuence by considering the broader context
of behavior. To do this, the eld must pre-
serve its conceptual core while innovating
methodologically. Opportunities to address
new and important problems thus carry with
them a burden of methods development,
which is an effortful exercise with uncertain
endpoints. An additional burden, that of
disciplinary self-examination (Baer et al.,
1987), may be encountered when strategies
of practical appeal run afoul of long-held
conceptions of what constitutes a behavioral
analysis. Do the present examples, and the
kinds of opportunities they exemplify, be-
long within applied behavior analysis, or are
they something else? Some readers, inevita-
bly, will view nontraditional approaches as
the slippery slope toward a weaker science,
but many decades of renement have made
applied behavior analysis strong and stable
enough to safely admit some variability. Per-
haps the more relevant question is whether
applied behavior analysts can afford not to
pursue topics like those discussed here. As
the example of substance abuse illustrates,
others are forging ahead with analyses of im-
portant behavior in the natural environment
that bespeak operant principles. It seems log-
ical that JABA and its contributors should
be a part of this movement.
In summary, the natural environment is
rife with opportunities for analyzing impor-
tant, temporally extended behaviors. Seizing
these opportunities can, ideally, promote
growth in the eld: new methods, new pop-
ulations, and new conceptual emphases to
complement existing ones. Yet the natural
environment poses self-control problems for
behavior analysts, not just for those whose
lives they hope to enrich. Existing research
programs can yield successes relatively quick-
ly. New lines of investigation produce ben-
ets only after much effort and delay. For-
tunately, the rewards of solving behavior
problems in the natural environment can be
substantial, and laboratory research suggests
that large rewards are discounted relatively
little due to delay (e.g., Green et al., 1997).
The present article has sought to magnify
the discriminative features of those rewards.
REFERENCES
Ainslie, G. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
21, 485489.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Aparicio, C. F., & Baum, W. M. (1997). Comparing
locomotion with lever-press travel in an operant
simulation of foraging. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 68, 177192.
Arnett, P. A., Fischer, M., & Newby, R. F. (1996).
The effect of Ritalin on response to reward and
punishment in children with ADHD. Child Study
Journal, 26, 5170.
Babor, T. F., Stephens, R. S., & Marlatt, G. A. (1987).
Verbal report methods in clinical research on al-
coholism: Response bias and its minimization.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 410424.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968).
Some current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,
9197.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1987).
Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20,
313327.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sus-
tained attention, and executive functions: Con-
structing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 121, 6594.
Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation
from the matching law: Bias and undermatching.
22, 231242.
Bickel, W. K., DeGrandpre, R. J., & Higgins, S. T.
(1993). Behavioral economics: A novel experi-
mental approach to the study of drug dependence.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 33, 173192.
Bickel, W. K., DeGrandpre, R. J., & Higgins, S. T.
(1995). The behavioral economics of concurrent
drug reinforcers: A review and re-analysis of drug
self-administration research. Psychopharmacology,
118, 250259.
Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999).
Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: Delay dis-
counting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psy-
chopharmacology, 146, 447454.
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968).
A method to integrate descriptive and experimen-
tal eld studies at the level of data and empirical
concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,
175191.
Bradshaw, C. M., & Szabadi, E. (1978). Changes in
operant behavior in a manic-depressive patient.
Behavior Therapy, 9, 950954.
Carr, E. G. (1994). Emerging themes in the func-
tional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393399.
Casat, C. D., Pearson, D. A., Van Davelaar, M. J., &
Cherek, D. R. (1995). Methylphenidate effects
on a laboratory measure in children with ADHD.
Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 31, 353356.
Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and
utility for health and money. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-
tion, 22, 771791.
Cherek, D. R., Schnapp, W., Moeller, F. G., &
Dougherty, D. M. (1996). Laboratory measures
of aggressive responding in male parolees with vi-
olent and nonviolent histories. Aggressive Behavior,
22, 2736.
Corkum, P. V., & Siegel, L. S. (1993). Is the contin-
uous performance task a valuable research tool for
use with children with attention-decit-hyperac-
tivity disorder? Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry and Allied Disciplines, 34, 12171239.
Crean, J. P., de Wit, H., & Richards, J. B. (2000).
Reward discounting as a measure of impulsive be-
havior in a psychiatric outpatient population. Ex-
perimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8,
155162.
de Luca, R. V., & Holborn, S. W. (1990). Effects of
xed-interval and xed-ratio schedules of token
reinforcement on exercise with obese and non-
obese boys. The Psychological Record, 40, 6782.
de Luca, R. V., & Holborn, S. W. (1992). Effects of
a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule with
changing criteria on exercise in obese and non-
obese boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
25, 671679.
Derenne, A., & Baron, A. (1999). Human sensitivity
to reinforcement: A comment on Kollins, New-
land, and Critchelds (1997) quantitative litera-
ture review. The Behavior Analyst, 22, 3541.
Dews, P. B. (1962). The effect of multiple S
periods
on responding on a xed-interval schedule. Jour-
nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5,
369374.
Dixon, M. R., Hayes, L. J., Binder, L. M., Manthey,
S., Sigman, C., & Zdanowski, D. M. (1998). Us-
ing a self-control training procedure to increase
appropriate behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 31, 203210.
Douglas, V. I., & Parry, P. A. (1994). Effects of re-
ward and nonreward on frustration and attention
in attention decit disorder. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 22, 281302.
Epstein, L. H., Kilanowski, C. K., Consalvi, A. R., &
Paluch, R. A. (1999). Reinforcing value of phys-
ical activity as a determinant of child activity level.
Health Psychology, 18, 599603.
Epstein, L. H., Parker, L., McCoy, J. F., & McGee,
G. (1976). Descriptive analysis of eating regula-
tion in obese and nonobese children. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 407415.
Epstein, L. H., Smith, J. A., Vara, L. S., & Rodefer,
J. S. (1991). Behavioral economic analysis of ac-
tivity choice in obese children. Health Psychology,
10, 311316.
Evenden, J. L. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psy-
Farr, C. N. (1998). Delayed reward discounting and
risky sexual behavior. Unpublished honors thesis,
Auburn University.
Finney, J. W., Putnam, D. E., & Boyd, C. M. (1998).
Improving the accuracy of self-reports of adher-
ence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31,
485488.
Flora, S. R., & Pavlik, W. B. (1992). Human self-
control and the density of reinforcement. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 201
208.
Forzano, L. B., & Logue, A. W. (1995). Self-control
and impulsiveness in children and adults: Effects
of food preferences. Journal of the Experimental
Friman, P. C., & Poling, A. (1999). Making things
easier with effort: Basic ndings and applied re-
search on response effort. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 28, 583590.
George, A. A., & Tucker, J. A. (1996). Help-seeking
for alcohol-related problems: Social contexts sur-
rounding entry into alcoholism treatment or Al-
coholics Anonymous. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
57, 449457.
Grace, R. C. (1999). The matching law and amount-
dependent exponential discounting as accounts of
self-control choice. Journal of the Experimental
Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myerson, J. (1994). Dis-
counting of delayed rewards: A life-span compar-
ison. Psychological Science, 5, 3336.
Green, L., Myerson, J., Lichtman, D., Rosen, S., &
Fry, A. (1996). Temporal discounting in choice
between delayed rewards: The role of age and in-
come. Psychology and Aging, 11, 7984.
Green, L., Myerson, J., & McFadden, E. (1997). Rate
of temporal discounting decreases with amount of
reward. Memory and Cognition, 25, 715723.
Harzem, P. (1984). Experimental analysis of individ-
ual differences and personality. Journal of the Ex-
perimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 385395.
Hawkins, R. P., Greene, B. F., & Fuqua, W. (1995).
Current societal concerns: Introduction. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 399400.
Higgins, S. T., Delaney, D. D., Budney, A. J., Bickel,
W. K., Hughes, J. R., Foerg, F., & Fenwick, J. W.
(1991). A behavioral approach to achieving initial
cocaine abstinence. American Journal of Psychiatry,
148, 12181224.
Higgins, S. T., & Silverman, K. (1999). Motivating
behavior change among illicit-drug abusers. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hopkins, B. L. (1987). Comments on the future of
applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Be-
Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Baz-
erman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals be-
tween joint and separate evaluations of options: A
review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bul-
letin, 125, 576590.
Hummel, J. B., & Pitts, R. C. (2000). Procrastina-
tion in pigeons: Effects of drugs of abuse. Paper pre-
sented at the annual convention of the Association
for Behavior Analysis, Washington, DC.
Hunt, G., & Azrin, N. H. (1973). A community-
reinforcement approach to alcoholism. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 11, 91104.
Hyten, C., Madden, G. J., & Field, D. P. (1994).
Exchange delays and impulsive choice in adult hu-
mans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-
havior, 62, 225233.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K.
E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a func-
tional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 27, 197209. (Reprinted from
Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Dis-
abilities, 2, 320, 1982)
Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Dorsey, M. F., Zarcone, J.
R., Vollmer, T. R., Smith, R. G., Rodgers, T. A.,
Lerman, D. C., Shore, B. A., Mazaleski, J. L.,
Goh, H.-L., Cowdery, G. E., Kalsher, M. J.,
McCosh, K. C., & Willis, K. D. (1994). The
functions of self-injurious behavior: An experi-
mental-epidemiological analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 215240.
Jackson, K., & Hackenberg, T. D. (1996). Token re-
inforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons.
66, 2949.
Kagel, J. H., Battalio, R. C., & Green, L. (1995).
Economic choice theory: An experimental analysis of
animal behavior. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kirby, K. N., & Marakovic, N. N. (1996). Delay-
discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease
as amounts increase. Psychonomic Bulletin and Re-
view, 3, 100104.
Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999).
Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for de-
layed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 78
87.
Kollins, S. H., Lane, S. D., & Shapiro, S. K. (1997).
The experimental analysis of childhood psycho-
pathology: A matching analysis of the behavior of
children diagnosed with attention decit hyper-
activity disorder. The Psychological Record, 47, 25
44.
Kudadjie-Gyam, E., & Rachlin, H. (1996). Tem-
poral patterning in choice among delayed out-
comes. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 65, 6167.
Kunkel, J. H. (1987). The future of JABA: A com-
ment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20,
329333.
Laipalainen, R., & Epstein, L. H. (1990). A behav-
ioral economics analysis of food choice in hu-
mans. Appetite, 14, 8193.
Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown,
D. K. (1993). Teacher use of descriptive analysis
data to implement interventions to decrease stu-
dents problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Be-
Lattal, K. A., & Gleeson, S. (1990). Response acqui-
sition with delayed reinforcement. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,
16, 2739.
Levin, F. R., & Kleber, H. D. (1995). Attention def-
icit hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse:
Relationships and implications for treatment.
Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 2, 246258.
Logue, A. W. (1995). Self-control: Waiting until to-
morrow for what you want today. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Logue, A. W., Chavarro, A., Rachlin, H., & Reeder,
R. W. (1988). Impulsiveness in pigeons living in
the experimental chamber. Animal Learning & Be-
havior, 16, 3139.
Logue, A. W., King, G. R., Chavarro, A., & Volpe, J.
S. (1990). Matching and maximizing in a self-
control paradigm using human subjects. Learning
and Motivation, 21, 340368.
Logue, A. W., & Pena-Correal, T. E. (1985). The
effect of food deprivation on self-control. Behav-
ioural Processes, 10, 355368.
Logue, A. W., Pena-Correal, T. E., Rodriguez, M. L.,
& Kabela, E. (1986). Self-control in adult hu-
mans: Variation in positive reinforcer amount and
delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-
havior, 46, 159173.
Madden, G. J. (2000). A behavioral economics prim-
er. In W. K. Bickel & R. E. Vuchinich (Eds.),
Reframing health behavior change with behavioral
economics (pp. 326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Madden, G. J., Bickel, W. K., & Jacobs, E. A. (1999).
Discounting of delayed rewards in opioid-depen-
dent outpatients: Exponential or hyperbolic dis-
counting functions? Experimental and Clinical Psy-
Madden, G. J., Petry, N. M., Badger, G. J., & Bickel,
W. K. (1997). Impulsive and self-control choices
in opioid-dependent patients and non-drug-using
control participants: Drug and monetary rewards.
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5,
256262.
Maisto, S. A., Sobell, L. C., Cooper, A. M., & Sobell,
M. B. (1982). Comparison of two techniques to
obtain retrospective reports of drinking behavior
from alcohol abusers. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 33
38.
Mannuzza, S., Klein, R. G., Bessler, A., Malloy, P., &
Hynes, M. E. (1997). Educational and occupa-
tional outcome of hyperactive boys grown up.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ad-
olescent Psychiatry, 36, 12221227.
Marcus, B. H., Dubbert, P. M., Forsyth, L. H.,
McKenzie, T. L., Stone, E. J., Dunn, A. L., &
Blair, S. N. (2000). Physical activity behavior
change: Issues in adoption and maintenance.
Health Psychology, 19, 3241.
Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for
studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Com-
mons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin
(Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5.
The effect of delay and intervening events on rein-
forcement value (pp. 5573). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Nader, P. R., Patterson,
T. L., Elder, J. P., Berry, C. C., Rupp, J. W., At-
kins, C. J., Buono, M. J., & Nelson, J. A. (1991).
BEACHES: An observational system for assessing
childrens eating and physical activity behaviors
and associated events. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 24, 141151.
Millar, A., & Navarick, D. J. (1984). Self-control and
choice in humans: Effects of video game playing
as a positive reinforcer. Learning and Motivation,
15, 203218.
Mischel, W., & Gilligan, C. (1964). Delay of grati-
cation, motivation for the prohibited gratica-
tion, and responses to temptation. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 69, 411417.
Mitchell, S. H. (1999). Measures of impulsivity in
cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Psychophar-
macology, 146, 455464.
Murray, L. M., & Kollins, S. H. (2000). Effects of
methylphenidate on sensitivity to reinforcement
in children diagnosed with attention decit hy-
peractivity disorder: An application of the match-
ing law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,
573591.
Myerson, J., & Green, L. (1995). Discounting of de-
layed rewards: Models of individual choice. Jour-
nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64,
263276.
Navarick, D. J. (1996). Choice in humans: Tech-
niques for enhancing sensitivity to reinforcement
immediacy. The Psychological Record, 46, 539
554.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Jeffery, R. W., & French, S. A.
(1997). Self-reported dieting: How should we
ask? What does it mean? Associations between di-
eting and reported energy intake. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 22, 437449.
Nevin, J. A. (1991). Behavior analysis and global sur-
vival. In I. Waris (Ed.), Human behavior in todays
world (pp. 3949). New York: Praeger.
Nevin, J. A. (1996). The momentum of compliance.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 535547.
Nordquist, V. M., & Wahler, R. G. (1973). Natural-
istic treatment of an autistic child. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 6, 7987.
Odum, A. L., Madden, G. J., Badger, G. J., & Bickel,
W. K. (2000). Needle sharing in opioid-depen-
dent outpatients: Psychological processes under-
lying risk. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 60, 259
266.
OFarrell, T. J., & Maisto, S. A. (1987). The utility
of self-report and biological measures of alcohol
consumption in alcoholism treatment outcome
studies. Advances in Behaviour Research and Ther-
apy, 9, 91125.
Oosterlaan, J., Logan, G. D., & Sergeant, J. A.
(1998). Response inhibition in AD/HD, CD, co-
morbid AD/HD CD, anxious, and control
children: A meta-analysis of studies with the stop
task. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, 39, 411425.
Ostaszewski, P., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (1998). Ef-
fects of ination on the subjective value of delayed
and probabilistic rewards. Psychonomic Bulletin
and Review, 5, 324333.
Petry, N. M., & Casarella, T. (1999). Excessive dis-
counting of delayed rewards in substance abusers
with gambling problems. Drug and Alcohol De-
pendence, 56, 2532.
Pliszka, S. R. (1998). Comorbidity of attention def-
icit/hyperactivity disorder with psychiatric disor-
der: An overview. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59
(Suppl. 7), 5058.
Rachlin, H. (1976). Behavior and learning. San Fran-
cisco: Freeman.
Rachlin, H. (1989). Judgment, decision, and choice: A
cognitive/behavioral synthesis. New York: Freeman.
Rachlin, H. (1995a). Self-control: Beyond commit-
ment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 109159.
Rachlin, H. (1995b). The value of temporal patterns
in behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 4, 188192.
Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment,
choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental
Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Sub-
jective probability and delay. Journal of the Exper-
imental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 233244.
Ragotzy, S. P., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1988). Self-
control in mentally retarded adolescents: Choice
as a function of amount and delay of reinforce-
ment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-
havior, 49, 191199.
Raynor, D. A., Coleman, K. J., & Epstein, L. H.
(1998). Effects of proximity on the choice to be
physically active or sedentary. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 99, 103.
Richards, J. B., Mitchell, S. H., de Wit, H., & Seiden,
L. S. (1997). Determination of discount func-
tions in rats with an adjusting-amount procedure.
67, 353366.
Richards, J. B., Zhang, L., Mitchell, S. H., & de Wit,
H. (1999). Delay or probability discounting in a
model of impulsive behavior: Effect of alcohol.
71, 121143.
Saldana, L., & Neuringer, A. (1998). Is instrumental
variability abnormally high in children exhibiting
ADHD and aggressive behavior? Behavioural
Brain Research, 94, 4550.
Sallis, J. F., Hovell, M. F., Hofstetter, C. R., Elder, J.
P., Hackley, M., Caspersen, C. J., & Powell, K.
E. (1990). Distance between homes and exercise
facilities related to frequency of exercise among
San Diego residents. Public Health Reports, 105,
179185.
Schubiner, H., Tzelepis, A., Milberger, S., Lockhart,
N., Kruger, M., Kelley, B. J., & Schoener, E. P.
(2000). Prevalence of attention decit hyperactiv-
ity disorder and conduct disorder among sub-
stance abusers. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64,
244251.
Schweitzer, J. B. (1996). Delay aversion versus im-
pulsivity: Testing for dysfunction in ADHD. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 37, 10271028.
Schweitzer, J. B., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1988). Self-
control: Teaching tolerance for delay in impulsive
children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-
havior, 50, 173186.
Schweitzer, J. B., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1995). Self-
control in boys with attention decit hyperactivity
disorder: Effects of added stimulation and time.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Al-
lied Disciplines, 36, 671686.
Scotti, J. R., Morris, T. L., McNeil, C. M., & Haw-
kins, R. P. (1996). DSM-IV and disorders of
childhood and adolescence: Can structural criteria
be functional? Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 64, 11771191.
Siegel, E., & Rachlin, H. (1995). Soft commitment:
Self-control achieved by response persistence.
64, 117128.
Simpson, C. A., & Vuchinich, R. E. (2000a). Reli-
ability of a measure of temporal discounting. The
Psychological Record, 50, 316.
Simpson, C. A., & Vuchinich, R. E. (2000b). Tem-
poral changes in the value of objects of choice:
Discounting, behavior patterns, and health behav-
ior. In W. K. Bickel & R. E. Vuchinich (Eds.),
Reframing health behavior change with behavioral
economics (pp. 167215). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior.
New York: Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, J. A., & Epstein, L. H. (1991). Behavioral
economic analysis of food choice in obese chil-
dren. Appetite, 17, 9195.
Sobell, L. C., Sobell, M. B., Leo, G. I., & Cancilla,
A. (1988). Reliability of a timeline method: As-
sessing normal drinkers reports of recent drinking
and a comparative evaluation across several pop-
ulations. British Journal of Addiction, 83, 393
402.
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Taylor, E., Sembi, S., & Smith,
J. (1992). Hyperactivity and delay aversion: I.
The effect of delay on choice. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 387398.
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement,
and psychophysics. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Hand-
book of experimental psychology (pp. 149). New
York: Wiley.
Stevenson, M. K. (1993). Decision making with
long-term consequences: Temporal discounting
for single and multiple outcomes in the future.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122,
322.
Stromer, R., McComas, J. J., & Rehfeldt, R. A.
(2000). Designing interventions that include de-
layed reinforcement: Implications of recent labo-
ratory research. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-
ysis, 33, 359371.
Stuart, R. B., & Davis, B. (1974). Slim chance in a
fat world: Behavioral control of obesity. Champaign,
IL: Research Press.
Tinker, J. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1997). Environmental
events surrounding natural recovery from obesity.
Addictive Behaviors, 22, 571575.
Tobin, H., & Logue, A. W. (1994). Self-control
across species (Columba livia, Homo sapiens, and
Rattus norvegicus). Journal of Comparative Psychol-
ogy, 108, 126133.
Tucker, J. A. (1995). Predictors of help-seeking and
the temporal relationship of help to recovery
among treated and untreated recovered problem
drinkers. Addiction, 90, 805809.
Tucker, J. A., Donovan, D. M., & Marlatt, G. A.
(1999). Changing addictive behavior: Bridging
clinical and public health strategies. New York:
Guilford.
Tucker, J. A., Vuchinich, R. E., & Pukish, M. M.
(1997). Molar environmental events surrounding
recovery from alcohol problems by treated and
untreated problem drinkers. In G. A. Marlatt &
G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Addictive behaviors:
Readings on etiology, prevention, and treatment (pp.
581601). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
(1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promo-
tion.
Vuchinich, R. E. (1982). Have behavioral theories of
alcohol abuse focused too much on alcohol con-
sumption? Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in
Substance Abuse, 1, 151154.
Vuchinich, R. E. (1995). Alcohol abuse as molar
choice: An update of a 1982 proposal. Psychology
of Addictive Behavior, 9, 223235.
Vuchinich, R. E., & Simpson, C. A. (1998). Hyper-
bolic temporal discounting in social drinkers and
problem drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psy-
Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1983). Behavioral
theories of choice as a framework for studying
drinking behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
92, 408416.
Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1988). Contri-
butions from behavioral theories of choice to an
analysis of alcohol abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 97, 181195.
Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1996). Alcoholic
relapse, life events, and behavioral theories of
choice: A prospective analysis. Experimental and
Clinical Psychopharmacology, 4, 1928.
Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1998). Choice,
behavioral economics, and addictive behavior pat-
terns. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treat-
ing addictive behaviors (2nd ed., pp. 93104).
New York: Plenum.
Wahler, R. G., & Fox, J. J. (1981). Setting events in
applied behavior analysis: Toward a conceptual
and methodological expansion. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 14, 327338.
Winett, R. A., & Neale, M. S. (1981). Flexible work
schedules and family time allocation: Assessment
of a system change on individual behavior using
self-report logs. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-
ysis, 14, 3946.
Woolverton, W. L., & Alling, K. (1999). Choice un-
der concurrent VI schedules: Comparison of be-
havior maintained by cocaine or food. Psycho-
pharmacology, 141, 4756.
Received August 10, 2000
Final acceptance November 8, 2000
Action Editor, Robert Stromer

Temporal Discounting: Basic Research and The Analysis of Socially Important Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Temporal Discounting: Basic Research and The Analysis of Socially Important Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Temporal Discounting: Basic Research and The Analysis of Socially Important Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

101

You might also like